During the course of our current experiments, we found an error in the x values used for the normative data plotted in Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1. Specifically, diameter was assumed to be radius and thus each average data point was plotted at an x value twice its correct value. The corrected figures are below.

Statistical analysis was reperformed on both data sets to account for this error, and the overall conclusions from each graph remain valid—a significant difference exists between retinal thickness above drusen and drusen-free areas compared to retinal thickness of normal patients at matching eccentricities for single isolated and confluent drusen. Bland-Altman plots indicating the statistically significant difference for the drusen and drusen-free data sets of Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1 are shown below.

Bland-Altman Plots for Statistical Analysis of Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1. Plots were generated by fitting normative data for each quadrant to a two Gaussian model giving an r2 > 99%. Using the model, an expected thickness value was determined for each location of each drusen and drusen-free data point, and a pairwise comparison of normative data and data points from (A) drusen and (B) drusen-free data sets from Figure 3 was performed using a two-way ANOVA. Identical analysis was performed on (C) drusen and (D) drusen-free data sets from Supplementary Figure S1. All comparisons gave a P < 0.0001, confirming the original conclusions of the analysis.

Bland-Altman Plots for Statistical Analysis of Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1. Plots were generated by fitting normative data for each quadrant to a two Gaussian model giving an r2 > 99%. Using the model, an expected thickness value was determined for each location of each drusen and drusen-free data point, and a pairwise comparison of normative data and data points from (A) drusen and (B) drusen-free data sets from Figure 3 was performed using a two-way ANOVA. Identical analysis was performed on (C) drusen and (D) drusen-free data sets from Supplementary Figure S1. All comparisons gave a P < 0.0001, confirming the original conclusions of the analysis.

In the Results section under the subheading “Retinal Thickness Changes Associated With Isolated Druse in AMD Eyes,” the first three sentences should read “Total retinal thickness directly above drusen (Fig. 3, black squares) was significantly less than the total retinal thickness of age-matched control eyes (Fig. 3, shaded area) at matching eccentricities (two-way ANOVA, P < 0.0001). This effect was greater in the perifoveal and outer macula (0.22 μm/μm eccentricity) than within the parafovea (0.19 μm/μm eccentricity). Total retinal thickness of normal, drusen-free areas (Fig. 3, gray dots) also was significantly less than normal (two-way ANOVA, P < 0.0001).”

In the Results section under the subheading “Retinal Thickness Changes Associated With Confluent Drusen in AMD Eyes,” the second sentence should read “Total retinal thickness above both measurement locations (75 and 225 μm) within the confluent drusen was significantly decreased compared to the retinal thickness of age-matched controls (two-way ANOVA; P < 0.0001). A small decrease in retinal thickness was seen in the drusen-free areas (two-way ANOVA; P < 0.0001).

The Supplementary Figure S1 legend should read “Supplementary Figure S1. Retinal thickness of confluent drusen and adjacent drusen-free area compared to a normative population. The total retinal thickness of confluent drusen and a drusen-free region, 150 μm from the edge of drusen compared to the average retinal thickness of normal subjects at varying eccentricities. Confluent drusen were measured at two different points, 75 μm from the edge of the drusen (gray squares) and 225 μm from the edge of the drusen (black squares). Drusen-free measurements are represented by red circles. All abbreviations as in Figures 1 and 3.”

Bland-Altman Plots for Statistical Analysis of Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1. Plots were generated by fitting normative data for each quadrant to a two Gaussian model giving an r2 > 99%. Using the model, an expected thickness value was determined for each location of each drusen and drusen-free data point, and a pairwise comparison of normative data and data points from (A) drusen and (B) drusen-free data sets from Figure 3 was performed using a two-way ANOVA. Identical analysis was performed on (C) drusen and (D) drusen-free data sets from Supplementary Figure S1. All comparisons gave a P < 0.0001, confirming the original conclusions of the analysis.

Bland-Altman Plots for Statistical Analysis of Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S1. Plots were generated by fitting normative data for each quadrant to a two Gaussian model giving an r2 > 99%. Using the model, an expected thickness value was determined for each location of each drusen and drusen-free data point, and a pairwise comparison of normative data and data points from (A) drusen and (B) drusen-free data sets from Figure 3 was performed using a two-way ANOVA. Identical analysis was performed on (C) drusen and (D) drusen-free data sets from Supplementary Figure S1. All comparisons gave a P < 0.0001, confirming the original conclusions of the analysis.